On July 9, the Sedona City Council unanimously voted to awarded a $254,242 contract to Dig Studio of Phoenix to create a new master plan for the Sedona Cultural Park. A total of five firms replied to the city’s request for proposals, none of which were based in Sedona.
“We will propose a series of concepts, including housing and mixed-use development types and adaptive reuse possibilities, streetscape, mobility, connectivity and public realm improvements, and trail and national forest access points design,” Dig Studio’s scope of work for the contract stated.
The contract will run through Aug. 5, 2025. The firm will be responsible for conducting the city’s proposed public outreach program regarding the park’s future development and producing three alternative concept plans “that will be vetted through the public and then brought to P&Z and finally to council,” Community Development Director Steve Mertes said.
“Is this going to be one big project? Is it going to be phased? Is it going to be parceled out in sort of multiple littler projects?” Councilman Pete Furman asked.
Mertes explained that the master planning process would not be part of the development process, but was instead intended to make development easier through “understanding what uses the public is looking for.”
“Is it going to be one RFP to build all the candy?” Furman asked.
“We can’t tell that at this point,” Mertes said.
“There has been some interest expressed around public facilities,” Councilman Brian Fultz said. “Do you anticipate we would get ballpark figures on what it would cost to do certain grandiose things with this land?”
“Will we get absolute numbers? Probably not. Will we get ballpark numbers? Yeah, I would assume so,” Mertes said.
Fultz asked if questions related to the proposed uses for the Cultural Park would be included on the city’s next budget survey in the spring of 2025. “Timing-wise, that’s not a bad time,” Fultz suggested.
“I think it’s a very good idea,” Mertes answered.
The city’s 2022 budget survey included a question on residents’ preferred future uses for the Cultural Park. Of the 11 options offered to respondents, four were various housing uses. Reopening the Georgia Frontiere Performing Arts Pavilion as a performance space was excluded from the city’s survey.
At the time, respondents ranked preserving the park as open space as their highest priority; open space preservation scored almost twice as high as any proposed housing use. Of the 185 written comments submitted in response to the “other” option on the questionnaire, 62, or 33%, called for the restoration of the park as a performing arts and music venue.
“Is there any concern you have that the public participation process isn’t robust enough, knowing how much the public likes to participate?” Fultz continued. “I expect there will be epic level of interest in engagement.”
“We’re having three [meetings] in a one-year process,” Mertes said. “This does and will give more than enough possibility for the public to provide their input.”
The scope of work for the contract calls for Dig Studio to have 26 biweekly design meetings with city staff, plus a kickoff meeting; eight stakeholder meetings with stakeholders defined primarily as city council members, city staff and adjacent property owners; two additional meetings with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission; two public meetings to take public comment; and one public meeting to inform the public of their conclusions.
Then-Vice Mayor Scott Jablow stated at the time of the park’s purchase for more than $23 million that “the public outreach that’s going to be done is going to be extensive,” while thenCouncilwoman Holli Ploog stated that “there is no way this land will be developed without intensive public participation.”
When asked on Aug. 7 if she was confident that the limited number of public meetings would meet the definition of extensive and robust, City Manager Anette Spickard said, “I think so. I am positive that we will allow people to provide us input throughout. If they want to send things in during that whole process, there are opportunities always to provide input to us.”
“If we just said there’s only two public meetings but 30 staff meetings, that wouldn’t really characterize it since we’re going to be doing a lot of different types of outreach to try to capture as many people’s thoughts as we can, recognizing that everybody can’t come to an in-person meeting,” Spickard added. “Obviously there’s groups out there that have very specific ideas that they think should happen, and I’m hoping that they provide their input in this process.”
The contract and scope of work make no reference to the existing amphitheater or to potential arts and culture uses for the property long sought by the community. Spickard did not say if consideration of options for reopening the venue would be included in the planning process.
“I’m not going to close the door on anything or promise anything,” Spickard said. “This is supposed to be an open process from start to finish without any preconceived assumptions. It depends on what they gather from the public input … I think we’re open to all suggestions about uses for that property and ways they can complement each other.”
Spickard also said that the proposal to begin constructing apartments on the northeast corner of the property prior to any planning being done will now be “waiting for the master planning.”
